/ 
Tristyn Bloom
Matthew Cantirino
Anthony Esolen
Gene Fant
Greg Forster
Matthew J. Franck
Collin Garbarino
Robert P. George
William J. Haun
Leroy Huizenga
Katherine Infantine
Joseph Knippenberg
David T. Koyzis
Robert T. Miller
Matthew Milliner
David Mills
Mark Movsesian
William Mumma
Nathaniel Peters
R.R. Reno
James R. Rogers
Russell E. Saltzman
Matthew Schmitz
Kevin Staley-Joyce
David Talcott
Anna Williams
Billionaire investor Warren Buffet has a plan for ending the federal budget deficit:
I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
July 11th, 2011 | 1:31 pm
Clearly unconstitutional, but then that doesn’t seem to matter anymore…
July 11th, 2011 | 3:16 pm
Probably better would be to return tax levels to what they were during the Clinton years, and tighten up the executive branch’s ability to wage war, especially without requiring support from more people than the military and their families.
July 11th, 2011 | 3:57 pm
Todd: I’ll trade you Clinton level taxation in exchange for Clinton level spending. Do we have a deal?
July 11th, 2011 | 4:17 pm
yep. that’d work
July 11th, 2011 | 8:51 pm
Brian, you’re talking to a pacifist who objected to presidential adventurism in southwest Asia, and who wouldn’t mind seeing an end to an overseas military.
Of course, we’d have to forego refitting a chewed-up military infrastructure, but if you can live with it …
July 12th, 2011 | 9:19 am
How about this plan:
Divide the total US debt (14$trillion?) by the number of Congressman/women, Senators, POTUS and VPOTUS, and send them each the bill for their portion. Then start deducting it from their total compensation package (100% of each check) until the debt is paid off.
July 12th, 2011 | 10:11 am
Todd: Um, I’m pretty sure the Clinton era military was perfectly capable of “presidential adventurism” so the idea that “we’d have to forego refitting a chewed-up military infrastructure” is just silly.
If you think “an end to an overseas military” is really a net positive for the world, you’re delusional. I wish it were otherwise, but it’s not.
All of this is academic anyway. History shows very clearly that the US government can only extract 18-20% of GDP in taxation, and with current spending closer to 25%, spending WILL be massively slashed. Defense will be among the first big hits, since it still has lots of opponents and for as many supporters as it has, they don’t outnumber those who want SS & Medicare untouched.
July 14th, 2011 | 12:32 am
Brian, does a 5-7% reduction really constitute massive slashing?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact